hxa7241

26 ms·

181.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> If you're asking if acts can be moral or immoral even if they have no consequences, then the answer is yes, they can. If you are going to make a rule -- i.e. that restricts people in the real world -- yet it has no purpose in real-wor
182.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> Intellectual property is just as much property as physical property is That is wrong. And it is easy to see there must be a problem with it. If you copy my stuff, you benefit and I am unaffected. If I in return copy your stuff, we bot
183.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Well, you have started upon just the pertinent path, so let us consider the conclusion. Would it be immoral to do something 'to' someone, when it has no effect on them at all? Hmmm, that seems rather difficult to find any immorality in -- a
184.
by hxa7241 15y ago
It is meant to optimise the trade-off of both. (Encouraging production alone does not suffice to justify it.) See paragraph 2 of http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html Given that, the original point stands.
185.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> The two mala can overlap; in the realm of unauthorized copying, I think that they sometimes, but not always, do How? You are taking a more cautious view than me, which is maybe more prudent and respectable. But I would be interested t
186.
by hxa7241 15y ago
The morality is quite different to physical goods. Infringement is a malum prohibitum not a malum in se . Copying is not immoral in itself. Quite the opposite: it is something we would want to encourage. It can only really be immoral i
187.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> my right to do with my work as I see fit You mean your right to tell other people what they can or cannot do. Copyright does not give you a right to do any more than you can anyway. It removes the normal rights of everyone else. Wit
188.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> In the UK the fastest one can go is with Virgin 50MB . . . well, unless you move to Bradwell Abbey or Highams Park: then you should soon get FTTP at about 100Mbps. An Openreach guy was telling me this afternoon it should just be a few
189.
by hxa7241 16y ago
No, not quite. They/we want the same kind of justice so our fundamental expectations or rights preserved -- and if that does not suit copyright, then it is copyright that must give way. Of course it may not be easy to square the two. But
190.
by hxa7241 16y ago
There is some truth there, but let us be clear about something: The hard question to answer is how best to arrange cultural production. The easy question to answer is whether we should surrender fundamental expectations/rights to a few corp
191.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Wittgenstein reportedly (from Anscombe) used to say that the Tractatus was not all wrong: it was not like a bag of junk professing to be a clock, but like a clock that did not tell you the right time. Which is perhaps more interesting tha
192.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorit
193.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> artificial general intelligence is perfectly possible (we do, after all, have a working example) It depends what is meant by 'general'. Would we say that humans have 'general' physical capability? Well, we can do quite a few things,
194.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> I think strong AI isn't that far away But we don't even have intelligent humans yet! But seriously, I am not sure it can be said to be near or far. Think of it analogously to physical capability. Have we developed 'strong' Artificial
195.
by hxa7241 16y ago
UML and its manipulations are only a relatively small thing -- the Unified Process covers much more than that. So, as a question on process , OO or functional does not matter much: the software is treated really as modules or parts. Whethe
196.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Chomsky is not anti-capitalist in the sense of proposing some particular complete replacement of it (as one might infer from your comment). He carefully avoids what is not well understood. Would you say capitalism is perfect? No, of course
197.
by hxa7241 16y ago
The amount of data, when aggregated over many people, adds up to bandwidth of network needed. An ISP's customers, all added together, are downloading a certain amount per month. That is, a certain amount of data per time period -- which
198.
by hxa7241 16y ago
But whether the industry is shrinking, or sales are down, is not really the question. That is really what the industries themselves care about. The important thing is whether we, the public, have sufficient production, which is a somewhat d
199.
by hxa7241 16y ago
The article seems confused, or stuck in obsolete ways of thinking. The real purpose is not to pay for 'books'. It is not to 'protect' author's 'rights. It is not to have 'ownership. The purpose here is to pay for production of books. Prod
200.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> We should stop using the term "Object Oriented". I see two reasons: first, "OO" means too many things to too many people. Second, the most popular definition of OO is essentially about syntactic sugar. 1, there is a good enough concen
201.
by hxa7241 16y ago
That is sheer propagandist nonsense. You do recognise the basic unassailable physical difference between copying something and removing it, don't you? The differences of economics follow from the differences in physical fact. Consider this
202.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> As a user I think it sucks, but I have to respect that as a business strategy. No, I do not think respect is quite what it deserves. It does not flow from their capability, but from particular exploitation of given laws that allow m
203.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Oh please! Copying something is not theft or stealing, either legally, ethically, or physically. You can argue about the economic effects, but at least stop using misleading terms -- it does not help anyone understand anything.
204.
by hxa7241 16y ago
This is the interesting question isn't it? Do other languages not have similar 'neutral' formulations? How far could such a ploy be generalised?
205.
by hxa7241 16y ago
The influence of popularity, or collective opinion, is something deeply evolved into us. That means it cannot be all bad, and is probably quite good, perhaps strongly so. It seems related to our tendency and capability to cooperate, and tha
206.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. No, there really isn't: it makes no sense when you examine it. Normal property manages a limited resource -- material things. By restricting one person's ac
207.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> I haven't seen any arguments that are more than people feeling entitled to things. * Economically: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... * Morally: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against
208.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> from each according to their ability Good to see a bit of Marxism/Communism on HN occasionally! -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abil...
209.
by hxa7241 16y ago
It is not as bad as superstition and hallucination. The knowledge, such as it is, derives from people actually producing software. A firm respect for practical knowledge, as much as for hard scientific knowledge, is entirely normal for engi
210.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> computer graphics algorithms. The reason is the same . . . another reason is the test code is/will/might-be as complexly numerical as what it is supposed to test -- how do you feel confident about it ? write tests for it? hmmmm . . .

More ›